Need Some Honest Feedback On late Bloomers.

[ApplePion]

Well, M.I.T. is the college I would prefer by far, but not for prestige. It is because I know they have some of the best of the best professors,.

Being that you seem to have said that you do not have a physics background, how would you know if MIT has great professors?

Do you really know?

 

[ApplePion]

MIT has some of the best teachers in the world. There are also a lot of teachers there that couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag. MIT is first and foremost a research institute, which means that teaching skill is secondary.

Have you ever taken a course at MIT?

 

[Jack21222]

I know it isn't exactly the same, but I turn 30 in a couple months, and I just started my first year of grad school. It's not MIT, but it's a 15 minute bus ride away across the river, so close enough. I haven't had any problems with my age, but I'm not sure what a few extra years will do. I'm not the oldest person in my class, for what it's worth. So, you might be fine.

Have you ever taken a course at MIT?

I'm pretty sure he graduated from MIT, he's a pretty prolific poster here.

 

[ApplePion]

I'm pretty sure he graduated from MIT, he's a pretty prolific poster here.

I'd be really surprised if he did. I did graduate from MIT, and his description of MIT sounds like a stereotype that people assume, and it is extremely far from how MIT was when I was there. That was a long time ago, so perhaps MIT has changed, but I think he was just perpetuating a stereotype.

 

[Mépris]

One of the good things that you learn at MIT is the relative unimportance of grades.

Same with Reed, who are third behind CalTech and MIT respectively in terms of PhD productivity. Do note that this is a liberal arts college though.

http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html

It is interesting to note that a very small percentage (less than 1%) of their entering freshman this year were older than 20.

I'd be really surprised if he did. I did graduate from MIT, and his description of MIT sounds like a stereotype that people assume, and it is extremely far from how MIT was when I was there. That was a long time ago, so perhaps MIT has changed, but I think he was just perpetuating a stereotype.

Class of '91, if I recall correctly.

 

[rsq_a]

Don't worry about age. If you have the drive, and can keep the drive, you will make it.

You are young aren't you? Young people tend to worry less about age.

It's not so much about age as it is about circumstance. Drive is definitely connected to age and age to circumstance. For example, when you're 20 years old, and your entire lift is devoted to schooling, then it's relatively easy to concentrate on your studies and pull an all-nighter. Try doing that when you're 30, married with kids, have to pay a mortgage, etc. etc.

This is what people don't realize about careers in academia. The hard part isn't the exams---it's the attrition: 4 years of undergrad, 4-6 years of grad school, 2-4 years of postdoc, then another 3+ years getting tenure. At each stage, the field is getting smaller and things are getting more and more competitive. Think of it like playing a sport. Getting into a top school undergrad program is like making your high school team (you have to be bright and have potential). Getting into a top school grad program is like making a collegiate team. Getting into a top school postdoc is like making a pro team. And so on. Plenty of amazing high school players never make their collegiate team in the same way that many undergrads who say "I'm planning on getting a PhD" run out of steam by their 4th year and just want to get out of school.

I know of many amazing scientists with great drive who just couldn't deal with the constant uncertainty of academia. It's naive to just say "If you have enough drive everything will take care of itself". Try saying that to the baby that your wife just gave birth to.

If the OP's goal is to start a career in Physics at age 34, then he's looking to finish his studies at maybe 38-40. After that, what's next? A postdoc? Tenure track? It's not an easy route at that age. And yes, to answer the question, people will give preference to younger students. If you were a top gymnastics coach, would you take on a 30 year old?

My advice to the OP is to think about the long term. What happens after grad school?

 

[ParticleGrl]

You really, really need to think about the time scale here. You are 34. You won't finish your phd until your mid 40s, and you won't finish your postdoc period until your early 50s!

Think about that- the path you are suggesting means you won't be even applying to faculty positions (and you won't be making more than 50-60k a year) until your early 50s! Now, if you are on a hiring committee for a college, and you have maybe 40 or 50 qualified candidates for your position, and you need to get down to a shortlist of maybe 5 to interview, do you think the 50 year old makes the top of the stack? Will your wife (and maybe kids?) be willing to move across the world for your phd, your first postdoc,your second postdoc and your faculty position?

Its always worth keeping in mind that by traditional standards physics is a pretty awful career choice- the hours are long, the career uncertainty is through the roof, and the pay/education ratio is incredibly low.

 

[carlgrace]

I met a theoretical physics graduate student in the elevator just this morning. She is in her late 40s and she just passed her qualifying exam. I had seen her around for years but had assumed she was staff (I never spoke with her). She is a student at UC Berkeley, by the way. So there's an existence proof for you right there.